The table illustrates question 23. It shows to what extent the people in the different urban areas of Alvesta municipality are satisfied with Växjö municipality. The table for question 23 also illustrates what people from outside Alvesta municipality and what people from Växjö think about Växjö as municipality. The compare mean analysis was used and the scale from the questionnaire was 1-5 indicating very dissatisfied to very satisfy.
Case Processing Summary Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Location * Coop 203 99 3 1 206 100 Location * Compete 202 98 4 2 206 100 Cooperation with Växjö * Competing with Växjö Crosstabulation Q 25 Competing with Växjö Total Q 24 no yes to some extent Cooperation no Count 10 7 10 27 with % within Cooperation 37.04 25.93 37.04 100 Växjö % within Competing 11.76 14.89 14.49 13.43 % of Total 4.98 3.48 4.98 13.43 yes Count 57 36 33 126 % within Cooperation 45.24 28.57 26.19 100 % within Competing 67.06 76.60 47.83 62.69 % of Total 28.36 17.91 16.42 62.69 to some Count 18 4 26 48 extent % within Cooperation 37.5 8.33 54.17 100 % within Competing 21.18 8.51 37.68 23.88 % of Total 8.96 1.99 12.94 23.88 Total Count 85 47 69 201 % within Cooperation 42.29 23.38 34.33 100 % within Competing 100 100 100 100 % of Total 42.29 23.38 34.33 100
This table illustrates question 24 and 25. The two questions regard the co-opetition theory in our paper. Question 24 regards the cooperation between Växjö and Alvesta and question 25 shows the competition between Alvesta and Växjö. Cross tabulation is used to find out what people think about cooperating and competing with Växjö. It illustrates the answers of the question (yes, no, to some extent) in both percentages and in number of observations. For this question inhabitants from Växjö municipality and other region was included. The highest percentage is cooperating with Växjö and not competing with Växjö which is 28.36% in total.
31 5.1.5 Question 26 Question 26 is an open question in this thesis and was asked in order to give an open word for extra comments in the end of the questionnaire. The answers that did appear have been translated from Swedish into English with as good accuracy as possible and will be presented in this section of the paper.
Question: 26. Do you have any suggestion on how Alvesta could be more attractive? Answers categorized in different classes:
Infrastructure The issues that the inhabitants’ feel that those could be improved regarding infrastructure are: Parking areas, the center, travelling centre, entrance signs to Alvesta, walking bridge over the railway, ATM machines and good broadband to the urban areas, the liberation of house lots around the lake, and more nature areas such as parks.
Cultural activities The wanting to be improved issues that regards cultural activities includes; more artists, festivals, leisure activities for children families and youth, and more tourism activities in Alvesta municipality.
Education The education can be improved in the following way according to the inhabitants: Better school politics, more money on good schools and competent teachers in general, and cooperation with Växjö municipality regarding education are suggested.
Politics In the political area the inhabitants bring up the following issues; more efficient municipality politicians in general and a higher ability to give propositions to the current politicians.
Other One other category has been made due to the fact that some suggestions are hard to place. The suggestions that are brought up by the inhabitants in this category is; more stores, create a major region in the middle of Småland by putting Alvesta and Växjö municipality together, more cafés, a lunch restaurant with lighter food, better communications within the
32 municipality, gas station/restaurant out by road 25, raise the competence level of the municipality workers, and a better hockey team.
5.2 Interview with Alvesta municipality
This interview was conducted April 23rd at Alvesta municipality office with Tomas Hedevik for 100minutes. This is the empirical data and not the full transcript of the interview. The questions and the most important part of the answers will be exposed in this part of the paper. Questions are categorized depending on what theory they belong to.
SWOT 1. What are the internal strengths of Alvesta municipality? The infrastructure to both individual and business purposes should be considered as strength. Also the social standard is strong in Alvesta municipality in comparison to other municipalities. This is a result of a test that is carried out every year. That test focuses primarily on elderly care and schools.
2. Within Alvesta municipality, would you say that there are committed employees? Is there superior management talent? Both questions are subjective but Alvesta municipality has lots of committed employees according to Tomas Hedevik’s general impression. Regarding the second question, he is satisfied with the civil servants but not with the politicians, due to unclear political target.
3. What are the internal weaknesses of Alvesta municipality? How well is marketing and branding strategy formulated within the municipality office? One of the weaknesses is that the marketing strategy is not well formulated even though that work is in progress. The main branding work consists of the platform that now is being communicated to municipality workers.
4. Why do you believe that there is a negative marketing image of Alvesta municipality? Alvesta is still dealing with its negative image which is small brother complex. It is because of the lack of marketing of Alvesta municipality. Alvesta has not done any branding activities even though they are considerably good in many areas. It is also due to the fact that the
33 position as marketing manager had been vacant for 2.5 years before Tomas Hedevik to work. The lack of marketing is a direct consequence of the negative image.
5. How much money is spent on research and development to improve the municipality in various ways? What is your R & D (Research and Development) spent on the most? Because the public sector does not use the term R&D, he cannot give any exact figures in this matter. The highest amount of money is spent on elderly care and schools in order to provide good services with a high efficiency level.
6. What are the external opportunities? Is there rapid market growth in Alvesta? There is not a rapid growth in Alvesta municipality. The focus is to attract more inhabitants and to help the current companies. If opportunities to attract more inhabitants appear it will be the most important issue.
7. Are there any alliances or joint activities with other municipalities? There is within the tourism area and the marketing area between Växjö and Alvesta. Also in the infrastructure business and the work with attracting conferences, there is cooperation. Another field with cooperation is the regional one, where buses and trains are coordinated.
8. What are the external threats? The biggest threat is the international urbanization trend, which affect Alvesta.
9. Why are people leaving Alvesta? Which age group is leaving Alvesta? Young people in general leave Alvesta. It starts with the high school students because there are more education options in other places such as Växjö municipality. A bigger city attracts more students because of more leisure activities for the young people.
10. What is the major competitor of Alvesta and why? Växjö and other big cities are the major competitors since it is a trend to move to bigger cities.
11. Are you afraid of their competitor, regarding their strategy of attracting new people to their place? Växjö is a possibility to Alvesta municipality because Alvesta can attract a different kind of people if it uses niche marketing. It will then get inhabitants that Växjö cannot satisfy.
34 Gap analysis 12. What services does Alvesta municipality provide to their inhabitants?
- School (preschool, not high school). - Elderly care. - Infrastructure in the municipality to some degree, but only the streets. - Planning of houses and industrial grounds. - Cultural activities. - General social responsibility.
13. How much direct contact do Alvesta municipality workers in general have with the inhabitants? How do they communicate? Because a municipality is a service organization means that there is a lot of direct contact. The business happens when people interact. There is no exact number on how much the municipality workers connect with the inhabitants.
14. Have any research been conducted in the past to understand the inhabitants’ perception? In 2006 there was research conducted, concerning the co-workers experience of the municipality but that needs to be compared with the inhabitants’ perception.
15. What is your opinion of the current services that Alvesta provides? Are they as good as you market them? Are the services over promised or not? Alvesta municipality provides good service but it cost more money to market it better. That money has to come from the taxpayers. He implies that Alvesta is too careful when it comes to promises. That is why the service cannot be considered as overpromised.
16. How do you answer the inhabitants’ requests? The means of communication means on the circumstances of the case. We use all means as e- mail, phone, reception, and directly from the webpage.
17. How do you believe that the inhabitants perceive the services given by the municipality? What do you think about the need of the people? Can Alvesta meet that need? To what extent do you think they are satisfied?
35 Every municipality has this gap. Alvesta is aware of the inhabitants’ need and it can meet this need. Alvesta municipality is rather average in that area. Decisions that affect many people are made on a daily basis.
Co-opetition
18. What is your current connection with Växjö municipality? Do you cooperate in any issue? The water line that goes to Växjö is one of the current cooperation. The same water will go to the urban areas of Alvesta municipality. Other work is being conducted with surrounding municipalities in the county when it comes to public traffic. There is also an informal cooperation with people who are trying to establish a company. Another cooperation that is so far on an informal basis as well is cooperation around the high schools.
19. What is the major competition issue with Växjö municipality? The inhabitants are what the competition is mostly about but in a way that is a complementary as well. It is a different style of living that attracts different people.
20. Do you believe that a more extensive cooperation relationship with Växjö municipality is a possibility for Alvesta to enter? To some extent that would be possible. It needs to be a win-win situation in order for that to happen. One of the joint ventures between Växjö and Alvesta now is a combi-terminal to unload crates from the railway. It is a cooperation that benefits both municipalities both environmentally and economically.
21. What do you believe could be the short and long term effects of such a relationship? In what ways do you believe that you could cooperate in? There are discussion about merging Växjö and Alvesta municipality into one municipality. As long as there is profit to make there could be much cooperation in many issues. However if they merge two municipalities, Alvesta would lose the branding strategy platform that it now partially stands on.
36 Branding strategy 22. What does the current branding and marketing strategy of Alvesta consist of? It consists of the basic platform “Big enough to let ideas be born and developed but small enough to allow everyone to be seen”. Also the logos and the graphic profiles is part of the branding strategy. Alvesta is in the beginning stage of creating a brand.
23. How has the image of the place been changed over time? It is difficult to say because four different well-defined areas characterize Alvesta. It has not changed much because there has never been any clear branding strategy. The objective is to make an opportunity of these four brands and unify them into one in order for a good branding strategy can emerge.
24. What is the Alvesta municipality leaders’ vision? The overall vision is basically to provide good service to the inhabitants and to expand the municipality. That regards mainly inhabitants but also more different companies.
25. What are the festivals, cultural activities, sports and leisure events planned by the city? - Alvesta yran /- Alvesta market /- Allsång /- Moheda days /- Huseby Christmas market The municipality does not organize much by itself but are cooperating and sponsoring these activities.
26. What are the unique infrastructure facilities like cultural centers and conference facilities of Alvesta? Neither of them exists to a great extent in Alvesta. Folkets Hus by the library is one of few things that exist. Conference facilities are a question for commercial powers, not the municipality. There are some planning and grounds for building conference facilities.
37 5.3 Interview with Växjö municipality
This interview was conducted May 20th at Växjö municipality office with Thomas Karlsson for 60minutes. The questions are mainly about the co-op theory. This is the empirical data and not the full transcript of the interview.
1. What are the strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat of Växjö? The most powerful strength of Växjö is that it is the greenest city in Europe. The city uses fossil fuel free and has reduced the fossil fuel by 30% and until 2010, it is aiming to reduce 50%. Second strength is that Växjö is a university city. Third strength is that Växjö is an entrepreneurial city with many new companies coming to the area near Växjö municipality. Unemployment is also low, 2%. Lastly the culture and sports activities make Växjö a better city. The weakness of Växjö is that it lacks infrastructure. The municipality needs better roads and railroads. Also it is not close to coast. The opportunities of Växjö are 4 factors related to the strength. Växjö is a university city, which has lots of future engineers who can work in the near companies in Växjö municipality. Another opportunity is that new markets that are closely connected such as Russia and so on. Lastly it is the better living style. The threats are recession, internalization such as competing with higher level of merchandize. Also many people are leaving to bigger cities such as Stockholm because of the so-called brain drain.
2. What is the brand image like in Växjö? Before Växjö had Dynamic Växjö as its brand but now it is building a new brand “The Greenest City in Europe”. It has comprehensive and successful work with climate issues that enabled Växjö to win awards and get attention in both the national and international media.
3. Are there any alliances or joint activities between Alvesta and Växjö? What is the motivation of those? 4. In which issues do you cooperate and compete with Alvesta municipality? 5 municipalities near Växjö are integrating such as education, shopping, working and business and so on. Especially with Alvesta, Växjö center is 19km away from which takes 30 minutes
38 by car. That creates the possibility for people to work in each region. 7000 workers from Alvesta commute to Växjö and 4000 workers commute to Alvesta from Växjö. From this phenomenon you can say that people think it is cheap to live in Alvesta and work in Växjö. Växjö cooperate with Alvesta within 8 areas.
Water supply/ Tourism/ Special Leader program/ Garbage handling/ Prize for the successful company/ Newspaper for the households in Alvesta and Växjö municipality which is published 2 times a year / Växjö and company (conference company)/ Education, different high school program to attract more students
Also politicians were talking about emerging the two municipalities within 10 years. When it comes to competition attracting more inhabitants is a big issue in the municipality. It is said that every inhabitant spends 45,000 sek. Växjö as a big brother compare to Alvesta is being more generous like cooperating in business areas for the companies but Växjö is competing with bigger cities like Jönköping.
5. How do you communicate with Alvesta municipality? There are regular meetings in the political leader level and the managers of the marketing level. It is conducted 4-5 times a year. Tomas Hedevik and Thomas Karlsson often have a special committee meeting to discuss common projects for cooperation such as the newspaper, leader program, tourist brochure, and other issues.
6. What is the core competence or core value of Växjö municipality? As said before the environment The Greenest City of Europe, business, University City, culture facilities.
Environment Växjö - The Greenest City of Europe
Growth Quality of Life Hospitality
< Figure 3 The Expansive Växjö Network, 2008 >
39 7. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of cooperating and competing with Alvesta municipality? Advantages are more than disadvantages. Växjö is willing to merge two municipalities. Since the tax issue is important for municipalities and the municipalities have to be bigger and bigger for better services for the inhabitants. Also the population of the elder age group is growing. Although emerging Växjö and Alvesta is a political issue.
Alvesta is a strong municipality compared to other municipality, smaller municipalities are losing its inhabitants, even though Alvesta has a low growth rate and it is increasing. The railroad can be a threat to Växjö but it will compete with fast train(X2000) in the future.
40 6. ANALYSIS
In the Analysis chapter the empirical data is analyzed and examined. Also the theories are used in comparison to the data findings to validate the integration of the theories.
6.1 SWOT Analysis of Alvesta municipality
To identify the current image of Alvesta municipality it was crucial for us to start analysing the internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats. The purpose is to seek the best strategic brand fit for Alvesta municipality by highlighting its strengths, minimizing weaknesses and further more to pursue opportunities and avoid threats. First according to Tomas Hedevik the Alvesta municipality marketing department level the strengths are the infrastructure which is for both the inhabitants and business. Alvesta municipality has enough ground and the rail road which makes it more attractive. Also the social service standard is strong in Alvesta municipality in comparison to other municipalities. (Interview TH: question 1) There are many committed workers in Alvesta municipality which works as a strength as well. (Interview TH: question 2) From the inhabitants point of view the strength of Alvesta municipality was its nature which we have found out by the questionnaire, table 3 question 14. People answered with the highest satisfaction with the nature and the infrastructure comes next. Interesting fact is that people who live in Alvesta showed the highest satisfaction when it comes to infrastructure which is 4.36 in mean, it can be said that they are satisfied with their railroads. The weakness of Alvesta municipality is the marketing strategy that is not developed strong enough. Due to this lack of marketing strategy Alvesta municipality is not branding its attractiveness enough. The main cause of this weakness is because it did not have the position as marketing manager and the manager had been vacant for almost 3 years. (Interview TH: question 3, 4) This is also shown in the perception of inhabitants from Moheda and inside Alvesta municipality that they were dissatisfied the most in marketing effort of Alvesta municipality which was the answer from question 8 table 3. Moreover the inhabitants perceived the weakness of the Alvesta municipality as lack of culture activities from question 15 table 3. Even though Alvesta municipality is not fully in charge with the cultural activities people were dissatisfied with it and resulted in the lowest satisfaction in total. Also we have questioned the money spent on the R&D but Tomas was not able to give us exact figures of R&D, since Alvesta is a place not a company. However we believe that this
41 can be considered weakness since from the SWOT theory (Ferrel et al. 1993) weak spending on R&D can be considerably important issue to regard as weaknesses and to know the amount of money spent for the R&D is imperative as well. (Interview TH: question 5) The external opportunities, according to Tomas Hedevik, are to attract more inhabitants and to help the current companies. (Interview TH: question 6) Also he thinks that Växjö municipality is an opportunity and according to the theory other firms seeking alliances can be an opportunity (Ferrel et al. 1993), thus Växjö municipality can be beneficial to Alvesta municipality. Also Växjö municipality can be important opportunity because it will allow Alvesta municipality to attract different people by using niche marketing which will make people to move to Alvesta municipality that Växjö cannot satisfy. This is meeting the changing needs and wants of the people according to the SWOT theory. Also they have joint activities together such as tourism, business infrastructure, and transportation. (Interview TH: question 7, 11) We have not directly asked the inhabitants the opportunities of Alvesta municipality but when it comes to the Växjö municipality they answered in table 8 question 24 with 62% of positive answers about cooperating with Växjö municipality. On the other hand in table 8 question 25 they showed negative answers when it comes to compete with Växjö municipality. Thus it can be said that the marketing level thinks that Växjö municipality is an opportunity and the inhabitants think that Växjö municipality can be more an opportunity when they cooperate together. This issue of cooperating and competing will be analyzed in more detail in the Co- op analysis. External threat of Alvesta municipality from Tomas Hedevik is the international urbanization trend, which affect young people leave Alvesta municipality. They go to bigger cities because there are more education options and more leisure activities for the young people especially students. (Interview TH: question 8, 9, 10)
6.2 Alvesta Service Gap Analyses
It is important for Alvesta municipality as a place to offer a core benefit to the inhabitants in order to be attractive. For Alvesta municipality providing the best service is their main objective so we have analyzed the gap between the perceived service and expected service, service delivery, inhabitant’s expectations and management perceptions of inhabitant’s expectations by applying gap 1, 4, 5 from the theory.
42
As mentioned before in the theoretical part of the gap analysis, the size of gap one which is known as the management perception gap, is dependant of several factors; marketing research orientation, upward communication and levels of management. (Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman, 1988, p 38) According to Tomas Hedevik, the last research about perception occurred in 2006 but regarded only the coworkers’ perception about Alvesta municipality. (Interview TH: question 14) No research has been done regarding the perception of the actual inhabitants. The fact that the position as marketing manager also had been vacant for the last 2,5 years (Interview TH: question 4) before Tomas Hedevik got his current position, makes it difficult for anyone at the municipality office to understand the actual perception of the inhabitants regarding services. The lack of marketing effort can therefore be considered as creating gap one in Alvesta municipality, which is consistent with the theory of gap one in the gap analysis where the authors argue that lack of marketing research will make gap one bigger. (Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman, 1988, p 38) Hedevik has the current speculation that the inhabitants’ currently perceive the services provided by the municipality as average. (Interview TH: question 17)
Gap four, which is the communication gap concerns the external communication factors that affect the perception of the service delivery. The existence and the size of the gap depend on horizontal communication and the propensity to over promise, explained in the theoretical part of this research. (Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman, 1988, p 44) In Alvesta municipality, the horizontal communication regards the communication between municipality politicians and municipality workers. According to Hedevik, Alvesta municipality lacks a clear political target. (Interview TH: question 2) Such a statement suggests that the contact between cooperating departments within Alvesta municipality is not as good as it should be. Based on the theory, poor interaction between departments leads to an extension of gap four. (Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman, 1988, p 44) Therefore, the contact between politicians and the municipality workers that are in work of developing the brand is an important connection that is needed to function well in order to make a decrease in gap four.
The propensity to over promise regards to what extent the municipality over promise the services that they provide to the inhabitants.
43 A direct question regarding this question was asked in the questionnaire. The results of that question are illustrated in table 5 for question 17. The question gave three different answering possibilities (no, yes and tome some extent) and showed that 34 % answered no, 16.7 % answered yes and 49.4 % answered to some extent. Hedevik on the other hand, believes that the marketing of the municipality’s services are not over promised and implies that Alvesta is too careful when it comes to the marketing of its services. (Interview TH: question 15) In this gap, Hedevik’s answer does not concur with the voice of the inhabitants’ and based on the theory, it can therefore be suggested that gap four in this matter exists and is considerably large. One cannot say that this gap exists because the services of Alvesta municipality are over promised or not but it exist because the perception of managers and the perception of the inhabitants differ.
Gap five is the perceived quality gap, which is more of a summarizing gap than a separate part of analysis in the theory. (Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman, 1988, p 45) The questions from our survey that is important for the analysis of this gap are questions 10 to 15. These are all questions where the answers can be determined from a scale from one to five which indicates very dissatisfied to very satisfied, and they all show services provided by the municipality. In the mean analysis of table 3, one can easily spot the average answers from these question. The table shows that question 10, that regards infrastructure, shows a figure well above average in many of the urban areas in the municipality. 4.36 in Alvesta and 3.96 inside Alvesta (other urban areas in the municipality) that gives an average total mean of 4.06. This indicates that the inhabitants were very satisfied in total. Question 11 (education) shows among other values, 3.68 in Vislanda and a total value of 3.49 which is still above average. Question 12 (health care) shows among other values 3.72 in Moheda and a total value of 3.45, which is in between average and satisfied. Question 13 (elderly care) also shows a value of 3.45. Question 14 (nature) is the only question with a mean above 4 from every urban area in the municipality, which gives it an average answer of 4.24. Question 15 (cultural activities) is the question with lowest average answer among these questions 2.92 in Vislanda and 2.86 in Moheda gives a total value of 2.99, which is just below average. These numbers from our research shows a general perception of the municipality that is average to good, which is consistent with Hedevik’s speculation regarding the service perception. Something that is also important to understand regarding the questions 10 to 15 is the degree to which the correlations between the questions are reliable or not. It is illustrated
44 in table 4 in the empirical findings and shows the questions that have the strongest and weakest correlation in between each other. Health care and elderly care are highly correlated questions but infrastructure and elderly care are two uncorrelated services.
When summarizing the analysis of gap one and four, one can with base on the theory say that there is a negative gap in Alvesta municipality regarding the different views of inhabitants’ and marketer’. That includes all subjects previously analyzed such as the degree of marketing research, horizontal communication and the propensity to over promise the service. The existing negative gap of Alvesta municipality service will give negative impact on its brand. The gap that exists due to the inconsistency in the perceived service with expected service will affect the brand image negatively. Therefore it is imperative to close this gap and to offer better service quality.
6.3 Alvesta Municipality as a brand
The place theory explains three parts of the brand that are important in order to understand and develop the brand: brand identity, brand positioning and brand image. These three parts of the theory and interview with Tomas Hedevik and the questionnaire will be used to analyze the brand of Alvesta municipality. Brand identity explains how the owner or the company wishes the brand to be perceived. It is important to have a clear brand message and specify the meaning of the brand. (Kapferer, 1997, 94p) The owner is not a single person in our case, since Alvesta municipality is a place and not a company. Therefore Alvesta municipality as a whole considering the municipality workers and the politicians are the brand owner. Tomas Hedevik, who was an interviewee in this research as marketing responsible, should be considered as a person with knowledge and a considerable amount of influence of the actual brand. From the interview with Tomas Hedevik we have found out that Alvesta municipality has the basic brand identity platform “Big enough to let ideas be born and developed but small enough to allow everyone to be seen”. But it is in the initial stage and the inhabitants are barely aware of it. (Interview TH: question 22) When the brand is in the initial stage it is imperative for the brand decision maker to understand the goals and objectives of the branding. (Kapferer, 1997) Alvesta municipality has a clear overall vision to provide good service to the inhabitants and to
45 expand the municipality. (Interview TH: question 24) Tomas Hedevik wishes the brand message to be well perceived by the current inhabitants even though there are difficulties in achieving such a goal in reality. The fact that Alvesta municipality is divided into four different strong areas, where the brand is different in each area, unifying the brand can be considered difficult. (Interview TH: question 23) Such an issue can be considered as both opportunity and threat when it comes to establish brand identity. It is a threat because if one does not understand the different need and character of the different urban areas in Alvesta municipality, one can have difficulties to create a successful brand. However, it is an opportunity because if one does find the different characteristics of the urban areas, then the place can also be marketed as a place with multiple characteristics, which in turn could attract more people to Alvesta municipality.
The second part of the brand is the brand positioning. It contains the value that has to be communicated to the target group. It is essential that the place also promote its key values and advantages (Kotler et al, 1993). In the case of Alvesta municipality, it is the marketing of all the services provided the municipality office by itself or the issues, to which they have some sponsoring responsibility. Alvesta municipality has been working with its brand positioning with its brand platform which is stated above. As the brand identity platform Alvesta municipality’s primary benefit as a place is to provide good service to the inhabitants and to attract more companies. Positioning a brand for Alvesta municipality means emphasizing the distinctive characteristics that make it different from its competitors and appealing to the public, therefore it should put more marketing effort to position itself. From the questionnaire we have found out that marketing effort of the Alvesta municipality was the lowest. See table 3. Actually Alvesta is not marketing itself enough about its good services which are also stated in the Gap analysis. There are some monetary issue regarding to this(Interview TH: question 15) but successful brand must try to reflect what the core values stands for and make special comparison to other brands which helps identifying its own brand.(Barnes 2003) The brand image of Alvesta municipality is the actual perception of what the inhabitants have. According to Barnes (2003) it is important to create a strong brand image in the consumers mind and the brand image is built up by associations in the perception of consumers mind. Creating value for the consumers leads to the satisfaction of the brand and its loyalty. For Alvesta, before building a strong a brand it is more crucial to understand the perception the inhabitants have, thus we have conducted the questionnaire and gained considerable data. First of all the perception of the general image of Alvesta municipality was above average and
46 Alvesta inhabitants had the highest satisfaction.(Table 3) However if we compare the total mean of perception about Alvesta and Växjö municipality, there is higher satisfaction in Växjö municipality. Alvesta municipality = 3.39 (table 3) Växjö municipality = 3.61 (table 7)
Interesting fact is that the inhabitants from Alvesta who shows the highest satisfaction of Alvesta municipality’s image shows higher satisfaction to Växjö municipality brand image which is 3.57 and 3.62. The inhabitants who live in Växjö municipality also show high satisfaction of its own place which is 3.86 (table 7) Also the brand image is highly correlated with the perception of Alvesta municipality which shows the highest correlation value 0.5303. (see table 4 question 7 and 9) As stated before in the SWOT and Gap analysis the most negative perception of Alvesta municipality is the lack of the cultural activities. From table 3 we can figure out that the cultural activities and the marketing effort had negative perception to the inhabitants. According to Tomas Hedevik, the municipality does not organize cultural activities by itself but cooperate and sponsor activities such as; Alvesta yran /Alvesta market /Allsång /Moheda days /Huseby Christmas market (Interview TH: question 25) Even though cultural activities are not municipality’s responsibility, from the table 4 reliability analysis, there is significantly high correlation with the marketing effort and the image of Alvesta municipality. Moreover Alvesta municipality does not have any unique infrastructure facilities for cultural centers and conference facilities and this is also not in the municipality level to build. However there has been some planning for building conference facilities.
Therefore we can conclude that Alvesta municipality from its inhabitants has average perception of its brand image but it can be improved better by strategic brand positioning such as highlighting its strengths, minimizing weaknesses and further more to pursue opportunities and avoid threats. To become more successful as a brand regarding the external factor will be stated in the following chapter.
47 6.4. Co-opetition with Växjö municipality
There has been an ongoing cooperation and competition relationship between Alvesta and Växjö municipality over the years. Växjö municipality is an opportunity and a threat to Alvesta municipality. Everyday 7000 workers from Alvesta commute to Växjö and 4000 workers commute to Alvesta from Växjö which proves that there is high amount of interaction going on within each other. (Interview TK: question 3) In order to analyse the relationship with Växjö municipality we have so far analyze the SWOT of Alvesta municipality and service gap regarding the brand position finally its brand as a place. Our last purpose of this study is to seek mutual beneficial relationship for both Växjö municipality and Alvesta municipality. Therefore we will apply co-opetition theory with the empirical finding we gathered from the two interviews and the questionnaire.
6.4.1 SWOT of Växjö municipality In order to understand the current relationship between two places, and how that relationship can improve with cooperation and competition, one must first understand the strengths weaknesses, opportunities and threats that each place has to deal with on their own. That is a way to understand what both place need and benefit from. When it comes to the relationship between Växjö and Alvesta municipality, a SWOT analysis has already been made for Alvesta municipality. A SWOT analysis for Växjö municipality is now required, before one can understand the relationship between the two places.
According to Thomas Karlsson, one of the strengths of Växjö municipality is that it is the greenest city in Europe. (Interview TK: question 1) Such a statement suggests that Växjö municipality has strong ability to create a brand. Based on the SWOT analysis theory, this can be considered as a core competence in the internal strength table 1. (Ferrel et al,1999) It most likely means a good market image for the place in general, being able to stand out from other cities. For a city to be able to utter such a thing as being the greenest city, it must follow European variables and standards for what can be considered as green in different perspectives. It also requires making own research regarding what the variables look like and the ability to make short and long-term goals that will be backed up with clear political direction. The fact that Karlsson say that Växjö municipality has reduced the utilization of fossil fuel by 30 % and is aiming to reduce fossil fuel by 50 % in 2010 suggest those
48 important abilities. It also suggests that even though Växjö is the greenest city in Europe, they are still aiming to make the municipality even better, using different targets. That driving power means committed employees which is considered as an internal strength in the general SWOT analysis. (Ferrel et al,1999) Karlsson utter that strength of the municipality is that Växjö is a university city. (Interview TK: question 1) It does not mean that all students will stay and work in Växjö for the rest of their life because they graduate from the university in Växjö. However, it does give the municipality and near lying companies a good recruitment ground where possibly high motivated people can be found. This is an opportunity as well as a strength that Växjö municipality can take advantage of. The third strength that Karlsson mention is that Växjö municipality is an entrepreneurial municipality with lots of companies that settle down in the area around Växjö. (Interview TK: question 1) This is also an issue that can be suggested to be both an opportunity and strength. Naturally, these companies could explore the previously mentioned strength with Växjö as a university city and decide to recruit people there. The last strength mentioned by Karlsson is that the unemployment level is considerably low. It is around 2 % as it is now. (Interview TK: question 1) That can be suggested to be a direct consequence of the previous strengths of Växjö municipality. Lots of entrepreneurial companies find good manpower at the university, which in turn leads to a low unemployment level in the municipality. Lastly, Karlsson mention the multiple cultural and sport activities as strength for Växjö municipality. (Interview TK: question 1) Such strength could make the youth stay in Växjö for both high school and university, without leaving town for extra activities outside the school. It is also important for all other people in the municipality such as children families, retired people and normal workers for that matter.
One of the weaknesses of Växjö municipality that Thomas Karlsson mentions is the infrastructure. (Interview TK: question 1). The municipality requires better roads and railroads for better connection to other places in the surrounding area. Another municipality problem is that Växjö municipality is not close to the coast. Naturally, nothing is going to change such an issue, but to some extent it is a lack of strategic location for the municipality. When connecting that to poor infrastructure, one can suggest that it can be difficult for the companies in this place to transport merchandise to the nearest ports in a fast and convenient way. That can be suggested as an internal weakness based on the SWOT analysis theory.
49 (Ferrel et al, 1999) It can also be said that too little of the R & D budget is spent on better infrastructure
The primary opportunities have already been mentioned. The university is an opportunity for the companies and the other way around. One of the opportunities that so far have not been mentioned is the close connection to new markets such as Russia that is uttered by Karlsson as important. (Interview TK: question 1) It suggests that if Växjö municipality can use this opportunity, it can put the place on the international map and develop more extended international contacts with companies and places in those markets. According to the SWOT analysis theory, it can be said to be alliances with other places. (Ferrel et al, 1999)
Karlsson also mention some threats that are related to Växjö municipality such as recession, tough competition on the international markets, regarding merchandise and inhabitants leaving to other bigger cities such as Stockholm. (Interview TK: question 1) Naturally, developing international relations comes with a side effect. It is not for certain that Växjö municipality can keep up with the tempo required on the international markets. As taken from the theory, this can be considered as connected places developing new strategies that make things harder for Växjö municipality. (Ferrel et al,1999)
6.4.2 Cooperation and Competition with Växjö municipality In order to develop successful co-opetition relationship, it is required to analyze the current activities that both municipality cooperate and compete. From the interview we have categorized the activities they cooperate and compete. We will first analyze the cooperating activities. “Co-opetition” describes cooperation as a situation in which independent parties co-operate with one another and co-ordinate their activities, thereby collaborating to achieve mutual goals. (Zineldin, 2004, p 780) According to Thomas Karlsson and Tomas Hedevik the municipalities are collaborating in 8 areas. They share the same water supply line and handling garbage issues. They share information in tourism and publish tourism booklet together every year and publish newspaper for the households in Alvesta and Växjö municipality, 2 times a year. They also work together with special Leader program and awarding the annual prize for the successful company in the municipality. There is “Växjö and Company” (Växjö och Företag) that work for conferences in the municipality. Lastly they cooperate with education by having different high school program in each municipality to
50 attract more students. (Interview TH: question 18, Interview TK: question 3) In addition there is also an informal cooperation with people who are trying to establish a company. (Interview TH: question 18)
In co-opetition theory the two parties mutually interact by collaboration but they can at the same time compete with each other. (Zineldin, 2004, p780) The competition for Alvesta municipality is the inhabitants moving to Växjö municipality. (Interview TH: question 19) This competition can also be found in the perception of Alvesta municipality inhabitants. We have asked the inhabitants whether they want to move to Växjö municipality and 42.8% said yes, 10.7% to some extent. The biggest reason was the work which was 41% and this indicates that Alvesta municipality might lose its inhabitants to Växjö municipality due to the competition in work and business. (for more detail see table 6) Attracting inhabitants has been major competition between two municipalities since one inhabitant spends 45,000 sek which is great benefit to the municipality economy. Also the municipality is depending on the taxes the inhabitants pay therefore it is important to attract more people. For Alvesta municipality is a competitor but it competes more with bigger cities like Jönköping. (Interview TK: question 4)
All the activities in cooperation and competition between both municipalities highly affect the perception of the inhabitants and influence the brand image of Alvesta municipality. Therefore we have asked the inhabitants and also people living in Växjö municipality what opinions they have concerning this issue. Inhabitants’ perception of Cooperation and Competition with Växjö municipality is illustrated in the table 8. From the cross tabulation analysis table there is 4.98% of disagreement on both cooperating and competing with Växjö municipality which indicates passive opinion in co-opetition theory and 3.48 % answered for competing with Växjö municipality but not cooperating with them. On the other hand there is 17.91% of agreement in cooperating and competing with Växjö municipality but the highest percentage 28.36% of the people’s perception is to cooperate with Växjö municipality and not to compete with them. This indicates Alvesta municipality is still perceived weak from the inhabitants and still dealing with the small brother complex with Växjö municipality. (Interview TH: question 4) Lastly there is 12.94% who agrees to some extent of cooperation and competition with Växjö municipality.
51 6.4.3 Implementation of Co-opetition Strategy To implement the co-opetition theory, so far we have analyzed the SWOT of Växjö municipality and the current cooperation and competition activities between two municipalities. A feature of co-opetitive relationships are that the parties, which will be in our case both municipalities, adapt their processes and to achieve a better fit with each other. In order to obtain this fit there is a need to share information and experiences, and get rid of the sources of insecurity and uncertainty. (Zineldin, 2004, p 782) The criteria to seek for the best fit for each other will be stated below.
Criteria 1 Both municipalities should be willing to engage in an interactive exchange relationship that initiate with strong motivation. From the two interview conducted with the marketing responsible in Växjö and Alvesta municipality, we have found out that they have great amount of interest and motivation. Tomas Hedevik from the Alvesta municipality, he insists that the co-opetition strategy should be a win-win situation for both municipalities. (Interview TH: question 20)
Criteria 2 In order to maintain long term relationship each municipality should share the core value that each other wants. For Alvesta municipality its vision is to offer better service for the inhabitants. (Interview TH: question 24) Växjö municipality’s core value is the environment and it has a clear goal to be the greenest city of Europe. (Interview TK: question 6) Both of the municipality share similar value which is offering better service so that they can to contribute to attract more people. Moreover according to Zineldin (2004) each municipality should be willing to give up its “something of value” to receive in return the “something of value” belonging to the other party – in other words, the relationship is perceived to be mutually rewarding. Växjö municipality always has been generous as a big brother to Alvesta municipality (Interview TK: question 4) and Alvesta municipality is seeking win-win strategy which will allow both parties to give up of its “something of value” for mutual benefits.
Criteria 3 There should be clear defined arrangements when it comes to maintaining this co-opetitive relationship. Each municipality should be able to accept or reject terms and conditions of exchange.
52 Criteria 4 For successful and long term relationship it is important to communicate and interact without restrictions. Moreover each of the municipality responsible and politicians should have trusting attitude by sharing information and knowledge with each other. There has been regular communication between 2 municipalities in the political leader level and marketing level as well. The marketing manager Thomas Karlsson and Tomas Hedevik often have discussion in various issues for both municipalities. These meetings are imperative to keep the relationship and to build mutual integrity and act in honorable ways.
Criteria 5 When the co-opetitive relationship is implemented both parties should be able to strike a positive balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the relationship. It is vital to balance the positive and negative factors to prolong the relationship.
From analyzing these criteria and what the current status of the relationship between Alvesta and Växjö municipality is, one can view that the cooperation and competition already exist to some degree, between these two parts. Therefore it is now time to make a discussion, in what areas a more extended relationship could become a reality. According to criteria 2, a more extensive relationship can be pursued in the area where the municipalities have its core competences. One of the core competences of Växjö municipality is its high ability to shape and manage a brand. If Alvesta municipality could borrow some of the resources from Växjö municipality in this issue, could help the place get through the initiation face of branding. Such an agreement would be beneficial for both the municipalities because if Alvesta municipality develops a stronger brand, the region between the two municipalities becomes stronger as a whole, which can attract more companies and people. Naturally, if Alvesta municipality grows a stronger brand, it can compete with Växjö municipality to a higher degree. This kind of competition can still be good for the region since both the municipalities have different characteristics, and will therefore attract different companies that require different conditions for the offices and building sites. This kind co- opetition will also attract more people to the region as a whole, but at the same time Alvesta and Växjö municipality can compete with each other, where those people will move. The negative issue with this kind of co-opetition is that it is only Alvesta municipality that has a short-term gain in this issue. Växjö municipality only has a long-term gain because it will
53 take time for Alvesta municipality to develop its brand so that the region as a whole can benefit from this co-opetition.
Since Alvesta have a good set of infrastructure and Växjö do not, cooperation could be developed regarding this issue as long as both parties have something to gain. The cooperation can off course only regard the infrastructure that is municipality responsibilities and not responsibility of the state. The combi terminal that is being mentioned by Tomas Hedevik (Interview TH: question 20) is a good example of infrastructure cooperation between the two places that saves financial resources and is also beneficial for the environment in both the region as well as the country.
A third possible co-opetition issue can be seen when it comes to high school education. Both Alvesta and Växjö municipality have a problem with this issue, loosing people to bigger cities, where more education options exist. Cooperation in this issue would regard a major research study, funded financially by both the municipalities, trying to establish some guidelines for what the youth in these municipalities require in order to stay in the same municipality as where they finished the elementary school. Naturally, all things that today’s youth want to have in the municipality cannot possibly be funded, because the taxpayers money have limitations. However, such a study would help to understand where to put most effort so that the youth in the municipalities will be more satisfied than in the current situation. The competition in such an issue will regard the two municipalities trying to attract as much pupils as possible to each other’s high schools in the municipalities. Alvesta municipality benefit from this because it can help the municipality making more people stay in Alvesta municipality. Växjö municipality benefits from a co-opetition relationship regarding this issue. It not only to attract people to stay in the municipality for high school, but also for the university and possibly for a later job at the municipality or companies that are located around the place.
54 7. CONCLUSION
This final chapter will provide a conclusion of the study and an attempt to answer the problem discussion and purpose will be made. Lastly, the chapter ends with suggestions for further research about branding Alvesta municipality.
7.1 Conclusion of the Study
Alvesta municipality as a place is in the initiative stage of creating its brand. It has established its brand identity but showed lack of effort in positioning itself as a brand. Thus it has been losing its inhabitants to Växjö municipality and has negative perception by its own inhabitants. Our research have tried to analyze the current perception of the inhabitants regarding the service gap, marketing image, and co-opetitive relationship with Växjö municipality.
Alvesta municipality has great infrastructure as strength for both its inhabitants and for business proposes and it also has strong social service standard. On the other hand the weakness of Alvesta municipality is the lack of marketing of a place in general as well as the services that it provides especially the cultural activities. However it has great opportunities to attract inhabitants and companies by niche marketing and cooperating with Växjö municipality. International urbanization trend is the major threat losing its inhabitants to bigger cities.
According to Tomas Hedevik Alvesta municipality’s core value is to provide better service to its people. From our research we have found out that there were certain service gap between expected perception and existing perception. Gap one is dependent on the marketing research orientation, where we have found out that there is a gap due to inaccurate perceived service quality expectation in the management level. Gap four the external communication gap which occurs in the horizontal communication level exists to considerable extent. There is also a gap caused by overpromised of service delivery. Lastly the summarizing gap five tell us that there is a negative gap between expected services and perceived services.
Alvesta municipality and Växjö municipality has been cooperating and competing in many areas. In order to sustain long term relationship to create mutual value there is a need to
55 develop co-opetitive strategy. Both municipalities can benefit from each other in the areas such as branding, infrastructure and education service.
7.2 Suggestions for Further Research
The results that we have attained from this study have quite a few limitations. The main cause is due to the methodology and the lack knowledge in the theoretical framework.
In future research, more advance output analysis can be used for better understanding of the empirical data. For example regression analysis can be used to go deeper into analysis. In our studies we only used living location as independent variable but it is possible to analyze the empirical data with different variables from the demographic information.
Question 18 to 20 has been excluded in our analysis since it has no relevance to the Gap analysis theory which was going to be used in gap 4. The questions that we had were not understandable enough for the respondents to give clear answers. Therefore more thorough understanding of the theory and questionnaire design knowledge is required in future studies.
In order to analyze gap theory more profoundly further research can be conducted in gap 2 and 3 which about service quality specification and service delivery.
Therefore, we recommend further studies for Alvesta municipality to make a larger enquiry regarding the perception of their current inhabitants. Also further qualitative research should include political point of view since they are the important decision maker in the municipality and to indicate clear objective for the municipality.
56 8. REFERNECE
Articles:
Barnes. J.G. (2003), Establishing meaningful customer relationships: why some companies and brands mean more to their customers. Managing Service Quality, 13, pp178-186
Briggs, S.R., & Cheek, J.M. (1986), The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales, Journal of personality 54, pp 106-148
Chernatony L. De & F. Dall’Olmo Riley, (1998), Defining a brand: Beyond the literature with experts’ interpretations Journal of marketing management 14, pp. 417-443
Holloway L. & Hubbard P, (2001), People and place: The extraordinary geographies of everyday life, Harlow: Pearson education, p 48
Kavaratzis. M & Ashworth G.J, (Received 2004, revised 2005), City branding: An effective assertion of identity or a transitory trick? Department of planning, Faculty of spatial sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, pp. 506-514
Kavaratzis. M, (2005) Place Branding: A Review of Trends and Conceptual Models, The Marketing Review 5, pp 329-342
Nunnally, J.O (1978), Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw Hill
Zeithaml V, Berry L, & Parasuraman A, 1988, Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality, Journal of marketing 52, pp 35-48
Zineldin M, 2004, Co-opetition: the organisation of the future, marketing intelligence & planning 22, vol 22 no 7, pp 780-789
Literature:
Bryman, A. & Bell. E., (2007), Business Research Methods, New York : Oxford University Press
Ferrel,O.C., Hartline,M.D., Lucas, G.H. and Luck,D. (1999), Marketing Strategy: Market- driven management Strategic and operational marketing, Taxas, The Dryden Press
Ghauri, P. & K. Gronhaug, (2005), Research Methods in Business Studies: a practical guide, Harlow, England ; New York : Financial Times Prentice Hall
Kinnear,T., Taylor,J. (1991), Marketing Research: an applied approach, New York, McGraw-Hill
Kotler, P., Keller.K., (2006), Marketing Management, Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Prentice Hall
Kotler,P., Haider.D, Rein.I., (1993) Marketing Places, New York, The Free Press
57 Malhotra. K., (2004), Marketing Research: an applied orientation, Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall International
Nationalencyklopedin Band 1, (2000), bokförlaget bra böcker AB Malmö
Pallant. J, (2006), SPSS survival manual, second edition, A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (version 12), open university press
Internet: http://www.vaxjo.se/vaxjo_templates/Page.aspx?id=1671 http://www.alvesta.se/pdf/kommunfakta07_eng.pdf http://spss.com
58 APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Data collection from the questionnaire
Alvesta Moheda Vislanda Växjö Inside A Outside A Total Actual 136 44 36 216 Collection
Exclude -4 -1 -5 10 Categorized by 68 43 25 37 23 10 206 living location
Appendix 2 Demographic case processing summary
Case Processing Summary Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Respondent's Age * Location 206 100 0 0 206 100 Household Status * Location 206 100 0 0 206 100 Employment * Location 206 100 0 0 206 100 Work location * Location 191 93 15 7 206 100 Living Period * Location 158 77 48 23 206 100
59 Appendix 3 Demographic Cross tabulation analysis
Respondent's Age * Location Crosstabulation Alvesta Vislanda Moheda Inside A Outside A Växjö Total % of Total 18-25 10 1 4 3 2 6 26 12.6 26-35 12 2 5 5 6 30 14.6 36-45 13 8 11 5 2 10 49 23.8 46-55 20 6 15 6 4 9 60 29.1 56-65 10 6 7 4 2 5 34 16.5 over 65 3 2 1 1 7 3.4 Total 68 25 43 23 10 37 206 100.0
Household Status * Location Crosstabulation Alvesta Vislanda Moheda Inside A Outside A Växjö Total % of Total single 13 3 2 5 1 7 31 15.0 partner without children 23 6 13 8 4 10 64 31.1 partner with children 26 14 21 9 3 16 89 43.2 with children 5 1 3 1 3 13 6.3 other 1 1 4 2 1 9 4.4 Total 68 25 43 23 10 37 206 100.0
Employment * Location Crosstabulation Alvesta Vislanda Moheda Inside A Outside A Växjö Total % of Total Empolyed 44 19 28 16 10 30 147 71.4 Self Employed 13 1 6 4 5 29 14.1 Unemployed 2 1 1 4 1.9 Student 6 1 3 3 13 6.3 Retired 2 2 2 1 7 3.4 Others 3 3 6 2.9 Total 68 25 43 23 10 37 206 100.0
Work location * Location Crosstabulation Alvesta Vislanda Moheda Inside A Outside A Växjö Total % of Total Alvesta 52 5 14 14 7 25 117 61.3 Vislanda 5 13 1 4 2 2 27 14.1 Moheda 2 1 11 1 5 20 10.5 Inside A 4 4 3 11 5.8 Outside A 1 2 1 1 5 2.6 Växjö 1 6 2 2 11 5.8 Total 65 21 37 23 10 35 191 100
Living Period * Location Crosstabulation Alvesta Vislanda Moheda Inside A Total % of Total <1 year 6 2 3 11 7.0 1-3 year 7 2 3 1 13 8.2 3-5 year 4 4 1 9 5.7 >5 year 51 17 38 19 125 79.1 Total 68 25 42 23 158 100.0
60 Appendix 4 Reliability Analyses – Scale (Alpha)
Item label list
1. Q 1 Living in Alvesta municipality 2. Q 2 Marketing effort of Alvesta municipality 3. Q3 Image of Alvesta 4. Q4 Infrastructure, social facilities 5. Q5 Social care - education 6. Q6 Social care - health care 7. Q7 Social care - elder 8. Q8 Nature environment 9. Q9 Cultural activities 10. Q10 Attitude of municipality workers
Correlation Matrix Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q7 1 Q8 0.3697 1 Q9 0.5303 0.494 1 Q10 0.3637 0.1336 0.3204 1 Q11 0.285 0.3509 0.3177 0.1694 1 Q12 0.1546 0.1729 0.2963 0.1683 0.3749 1 Q13 0.1113 0.1807 0.2556 0.0121 0.2411 0.5277 1 Q14 0.2201 0.2176 0.1754 0.0328 0.154 0.1239 0.1158 1 Q15 0.3598 0.5342 0.4146 0.1095 0.1965 0.1302 0.1421 0.2127 1 Q16 0.2687 0.5009 0.3839 0.0984 0.2878 0.1266 0.1081 0.272 0.3357 1
N of Cases = 147.0 Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance 3.4755 2.9524 4.2517 1.2993 1.4401 0.1836 Inter-item Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance Correlations 0.2523 0.0121 0.5342 0.522 43.9893 0.0184
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients 10 items
Alpha= 0.7694 Standardized item alpha= 0.7714
61 Appendix 5 Questionnaire
Questionnaire in English 1. Age 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 over 65
2. How do you live? alone with partner without children with partner and children with children other
3. Where do you live? Alvesta Vislanda Moheda Other (within Alvesta municipality) Other (outside Alvesta) Växjö municipality
4. Occupation?
Employed Self-Employed Unemployed Student Retired On a Training Course Other
5. Where do you work? Alvesta Vislanda Moheda Other (In Alvesta) Other (outside Alvesta) Växjö - If you live in Växjö, go to question 23
6. How long have you lived in Alvesta? < 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years > 5 years
What is your general opinion of the questions stated below? very very Circle your option dissatisfied average satisfied 7. Living in Alvesta municipality 1 2 3 4 5 8. Marketing effort of Alvesta municipality 1 2 3 4 5 9. General Image of Alvesta 1 2 3 4 5 10. Infrastructure (railroads, roads etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 11. Education (elementary school) 1 2 3 4 5 12. Health care 1 2 3 4 5 13. Elderly care 1 2 3 4 5 14. Nature 1 2 3 4 5 15. Cultural activities 1 2 3 4 5 16. Attitude of municipality workers (municipality office) 1 2 3 4 5 17. Do you believe that the marketing of the municipality, regarding service quality, is overpromised? no yes to some extent
62
18. Rate your prefered communication means with Alvesta municipality office? 1-4 Telephone____ visit____ web page____ letter____
19. Was the communication method that you choosed as nr 1 in question 18, efficient? no yes to some extent
20. How often do you contact Alvesta municipality? no contact need < 1 time/month 2-3 times/month 1 time/week 2-3 times/week
21. In the future, can you imagine moving to Växjö? no yes I don’t know
22. If you would move to Växjö, what would be the reason? Municipality service nature shopping work, business other______
23. What is your perception of the general opinion of Växjö municipality? very dissatisfied dissatisfied average satisfied very satisfied
24. Do you believe that a closer cooperation with Växjö municipality could strengthen Alvesta municipality? no yes to some extent
25. Do you believe that more competition with Växjö municipality could strengthen Alvesta municipality? no yes to some extent
26. Do you have any suggestion on how Alvesta could be more attractive? _
Thank you very much for agreeing to complete this questionnaire.
63 Questionnaire in Swedish 1. Å lder? 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 över 65
2. Boendesituation? själv med partner utan barn med partner och barn med barn annan
3. Hemort? Alvesta Vislanda Moheda annan plats (Inom Alvesta kommun) annan plats ( utanför Alvesta kommun) Växjö kommun
4. Sysselsättning? anställd egenföretagare arbetslös student pensionär utbildning i arbete annan
5. Var arbetar du? Alvesta Vislanda Moheda annan plats (inom Alvesta kommun) annan plats (utanför Alvesta kommun) Växjö kommun
- Om du bor i Växjö, hoppa till fråga 23
6. Hur länge har du bott i Alvesta kommun? < 1 år 1-3 år 3-5 år > 5 år
Vad är din åsikt i nedanstående frågor? Ringa in ditt svar Mycket Varken Mycket Missnöjd nöjd eller
7. Att bo i Alvesta kommun 1 2 3 4 5 8. Marknadsföringen av Alvesta kommun 1 2 3 4 5 9. Generell åsikt om Alvesta kommun 1 2 3 4 5 10. Infrastruktur, (järnväg, vägar m.m) 1 2 3 4 5 11. Utbildning, (grundskola) 1 2 3 4 5 12. Vård 1 2 3 4 5 13. Ä ldreomsorg 1 2 3 4 5 14. Natur 1 2 3 4 5 15. Kulturella aktiviteter 1 2 3 4 5 16. Kommunmedarbetarnas attityd (kommunkontoret) 1 2 3 4 5
17. Anser du att kommunens servicekvalité är överreklamerad i marknadsföringen? nej Ja till viss del
64 18. Rangordna dina kommunikationsmedel med Alvesta kommuns kontor? 1-4 telefon____ besök____ e-mail____ brev____
19. Var den kommunikationsform som du valde som nr 1 i fråga 18, effektiv? nej Ja till viss del
20. Hur ofta kontaktar du Alvesta kommun kontor? Inget kontaktbehov <1gång/månad 2-3 gånger/månad 1 gång/vecka 2-3 gånger/vecka
21. Kan du tänka dig att flytta till Växjö i framtiden? nej ja vet inte
22. Om du skulle flytta till Växjö, vad tror du att den främsta orsaken skulle vara? kommunal service natur shopping arbete annan______
23. Vad är din generella åsikt om Växjö kommun? mycket missnöjd missnöjd varken/eller nöjd mycket nöjd
24. Tror du att ett närmare samarbete med Växjö kommun stärker Alvesta kommun? nej ja till viss del
25. Tror du att mer konkurrens med Växjö kommun stärker Alvesta kommun? nej ja till viss del
26. Har du något förslag som kan göra Alvesta mer attraktivt? ______
Tack för att du ville delta i vår undersökning !
65
